Disposed

Hazi Basharuddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jun 2021WRIC/11795/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide a pending land revenue application within a time-bound period of approximately six months, eliminating inordinate delay attributable to the authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 (Additional SDM) to decide Case No. 04 of 2013-14 under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act within six months with all expedition.

Hazi Basharuddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11795 of 2021 Petitioner :- Hazi Basharuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Pandey,Nandini Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is available on audio/video link. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents1, 2 and 3, is also available.

¶5

Haji Basharuddin, the writ petitioner, has approached this Court by means of present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent 3, Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Meerut Division, District Ghaziabad to consider and decide application No.04 of 2013-14 (State Vs. Hazia Basharuddin and others), under Sections 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act Original Case No.184 of 2005-06 (State Vs. Ashok Sanyukta Sahakari Samiti Ltd.) within a time bound period.

¶6

Record show that dispute relates to survey plot no.49 area 0.3420 hectares, survey plot no.48 M area 0.0840 hectares comprising khatauni khata no.219 and situate in village Rasulpur, Sikroda, Pargana Dasana, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, which was recorded as Banjar vide order dated 21.11.2005.

¶7

Feeling aggrieved by order dated 31.11.2005 petitioner approched this Court by means of C.M.W.P. No.47152 of 2006 (Haji Bashiruddin and another Vs. Assistant Collector Ist Class/Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Ghaziabad). Above mentioned writ petition came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2011 which reads as under:-

¶8

"In view of judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.597 of 2006 Mrs. Ajmer Kaur & others Vs. Asstt. Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghaziabad & others, this writ petition is also allowed and the reasons and directions issued in the aforesaid writ petition shall also apply to this writ petition.

¶9

No order as to costs."

¶10

Pursuant to above order dated 31.05.2012, petitioner submitted an application dated 14.03.2013 along with photostat copy of order dated 31.05.2011.

¶11

In compliance of order passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.597 of 2006 (Mrs. Ajmer Kaur and others Vs. Asstt. Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghaziabad and others) case No. 4/13-14 under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act (State Vs. Ashok Sanyukt Sahakari Samiti Limited) came to be registered.

¶12

Subsequently, Sub Divisional Magistrate sent a notice dated 02.01.2012 asking

¶13

the petitioner to appear and file objection, if any in case no.184 (State Vs. Haji Basharuddin and others).

¶14

Grievance of the petitioner is that Case No.184 (State Vs. Haji Basharuddin and others) which is connected along with Case No. 4/13-14 under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act (State Vs. Ashok Sanyukt Sahakari Samiti Limited) has remained pending since 2011.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that above-mentioned case under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act is remained pending for almost eight years. He has invited attention of Court to the order sheet of above-mentioned case and on the basis thereof he contends that the delay in disposal of abovementioned case even after expiry of a period of more than nine years is not attributable to petitioner. As such respondent no.3, Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Meerut Division, District Ghaziabad is liable to be directed by this Court to decide above-mentioned case within time bound period.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the facts as noted above as well as the submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Interest of justice shall be served, in case, a direction is issued to respondent no.3, Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Meerut Division, District Ghaziabad to dispose of abovementioned case in time bound manner.

¶18

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.3,Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Meerut Division, District Ghaziabad to decide Case No.04 of 2013-14 (State Vs. Hazia Basharuddin and others) with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the paerties and by fixing short dates preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified/computer generated copy of this order before him which shall be filed by the petitioner by means of a notary affidavit.

¶19

Order Date :- 30.6.2021/Atul

Hazi Basharuddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazi Basharuddin v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Asif Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. Another

Alamgeer Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shri Kishun Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Matsya Jivi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sayama Parveen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others